Roe JB 84 v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- Edward Davila
- 5:24-cv-07608
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In John Roe JB 84 v. Doe 1, Judge Davila granted remand because fictitious defendants’ citizenship could not establish diversity jurisdiction.
John Roe JB 84 and the defendants identified in the operative complaint as Does. The case was returned to Santa Clara County Superior Court, and the order did not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
John Roe JB 84 brought state-law claims against defendants identified as Does, based on sexual abuse he says he suffered as a minor. The case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court and removed to federal court by three Church-related parties.
The federal court ruled that the removal statute requires it to disregard the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names. Without counting the Doe defendants, diversity jurisdiction was lacking, so the court granted the motion to remand.
Judge Edward J. Davila ordered the action returned to Santa Clara County Superior Court. The order addressed only the federal court’s jurisdiction and location of the case, not the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Roe JB 84 v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints · No. 5:24-cv-07608
- Edward Davila
- Jan. 31, 2025
Background
John Roe JB 84 brought various state-law claims against fictitiously named defendants, including two Doe corporations, a Doe corporation sole, and Does 4–100, based on sexual abuse he suffered as a minor. He originally filed the action in Santa Clara County Superior Court on August 26, 2024.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Temple Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the San Jose California South Stake removed the case to federal court. Together, the court called these entities the “Church parties.” They relied on diversity jurisdiction and argued that the San Jose California South Stake, described as the only California-based party, had been fraudulently joined and should not count for purposes of removal.
Reasoning
The court focused on the operative complaint that had been removed. That complaint identified the defendants only as Does, even though the Church parties said they were the defendants sued under those names and contended that the caption had later been amended to identify them by their real names.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1), the court must disregard the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names. The court said this rule applied whether the plaintiff used the Doe designations because he did not know the defendants’ true names or because state law allowed him to use a pseudonym in certain circumstances. The court also noted that the parties appeared to disagree about the plaintiff’s citizenship, but said it did not need to resolve that dispute.
After disregarding the Doe defendants’ citizenship, the court described the plaintiff as a citizen of some state and the defendants as citizens of no state. It concluded that diversity jurisdiction was therefore lacking. The court applied the principle that diversity jurisdiction does not exist when one party has citizenship and all opposing parties have no citizenship.
Disposition
The court GRANTED the motion to remand and REMANDED the action to Santa Clara County Superior Court. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying state-law claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.